Temporary closures of schools and nurseries guidance update: child rights and wellbeing impact assessment

Disclaimer

This document is a point in time assessment of the likely effects of the above-named proposal on the rights and wellbeing of children and young people. This impact assessment should be read in conjunction with other impact assessments prepared for this proposal.

Scottish Government acknowledge the importance of monitoring and evaluating the impact of strategic decisions and legislation on children’s rights and wellbeing. Any information gathered during implementation of the legislation or strategic decision to which the impact assessment relates, will be used to inform future determinations of impact. Any new strategic decision or new legislation (including amending legislation) would be subject to a new CRWIA in line with the legislative requirements.

Brief Summary

This update forms part of the statutory guidance that supports the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”) and replaces paragraphs 63 - 65 of the previous guidance. The statutory guidance as a whole sets out how local authorities should comply with the 2010 Act when proposing certain changes to schools including school closures, mergers, or changes to catchment areas. It explains consultation requirements, ministerial call-in powers, and the factors authorities must consider, including educational benefit, community impact, and the rights and wellbeing of children and young people.

The updated section on temporary closures provides clearer advice for local authorities when making decisions about the temporary closure of schools and Council-run ELC settings. It aims to ensure such decisions are transparent, flexible, and prioritise the rights and wellbeing of children and young people. The revisions clarify expectations around engagement, decision-making structures, and factors to consider, with particular emphasis on educational benefit, community impact, and the needs of rural and island communities.

Start date of proposal’s development: July 2024

Start date of CRWIA process: September 2025

With reference given to the requirements of the UNCRC (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024, which aspects of the proposal are relevant to/impact upon children’s rights?

This update has clear relevance to several UNCRC rights. Temporary closures directly affect children’s educational experience, access to schooling, transitions between educational settings and their wider wellbeing. Strengthening expectations around transparency, early engagement and decision making means the updated guidance is considered likely to have both positive direct and indirect impacts on children and young people. Specifically direct and indirect impacts on children’s rights due to its effect on educational access, transitions and wider family and community circumstances. These impacts may be experienced differently by particular groups of children, including those in rural and island communities, children with additional support needs, and children who may face longer or more complex journeys to an alternative school.

The updated guidance supports the realisation of the following UNCRC rights:

Article 3 (Best interests of the child)

Decisions about temporary closures must prioritise educational benefit.

Article 12 (Respect for the views of the child)

The guidance strengthens expectations for early, meaningful engagement with

children and young people when a temporary closure is being considered.

Article 13 (Freedom of expression)

Children and families should receive clear, accessible information about the process and during any period of temporary closure and have the opportunity to express their views throughout the process.

Article 28 (Right to education)

Temporary closures must be managed in a way that maintains continuity of education and access to education through appropriate alternative provision, with children supported through transition to alternative provision. The guidance emphasises that temporary closures are only appropriate in very restricted circumstances. The decision-making process should consider potential disruption to education, travel distances and associated impact on attendance, curriculum viability and educational breadth. Educational benefit should be at the heart of decision making.

Please provide a summary of the evidence gathered which will be used to inform your decision-making and the content of the proposal

Evidence from:

• Feedback and data from local authorities: Local authorities provided feedback on how previous temporary closures guidance has operated in practice through consultation with Officials during the development of the guidance. This included examples of decision-making processes, challenges in maintaining small school rolls, and the importance of clear communication with affected families. The feedback provided by local authorities explained that operational realities often require flexibility to ensure children’s needs are met.
• Stakeholder engagement: Engagement with Early Learning and Childcare (ELC) colleagues, rural stakeholders, parent representatives, HM Inspectors and school closure stakeholders provided a range of perspectives on the impact of temporary closures. Stakeholders emphasised the need for early, meaningful engagement and highlighted concerns about consultation processes and the risk of temporary closures becoming permanent.
• School estate statistics and rural schools list: School estate statistics were analysed to identify trends in school viability, pupil numbers, and the frequency of temporary closure decisions.
• Existing temporary closure policies and 2010 Act examples: Existing policies, correspondence and previous casework including representations, provided insight into how temporary closures have been managed in the past.
• Literature search on existing research: A literature search was conducted to inform this impact assessment for the guidance update, focusing on the impact of temporary school closures on children’s rights and wellbeing. This included peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources from the last five years, with additional reference to older, well-cited studies where recent evidence was limited.

Key findings:

• Most recent research on temporary school closures relates to COVID-19 lockdowns, which affected all schools in an area whereas this guidance applies to individual schools where there are no or very low numbers of pupils and concerns about the viability of the school. In the Scottish context, temporary closure typically results in children being provided with an alternative catchment school, ensuring continuity of education and minimising the risk of learning loss.
• There is limited direct research on children’s views regarding temporary closures for viability reasons. However, broader studies on children’s rights in education (e.g., Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, 2025; Manyukhina & Wyse, 2025) emphasise the importance of respecting children’s views (UNCRC Article 12) and involving them meaningfully in decisions that affect their education.
• Good practice toolkits and reports (e.g., A Place in Childhood, 2024; Save the Children, 2003) provide practical guidance for engaging children and young people in policy and decision-making, highlighting the need for accessible, age-appropriate consultation methods. The literature also notes the importance of clear communication about reasons, timelines, and alternatives.
• Stakeholder feedback and policy analysis consistently support early, transparent engagement with children, families, and communities when considering temporary closures. Correspondence has highlighted the importance of early engagement and well planned transitions, particularly for children with additional support needs, where changes in setting, routines or travel arrangements can require additional consideration at local level. This reinforces the role of early engagement and transition planning in identifying and responding to individual circumstances.
• While some studies discuss broader community impacts of rural school closures, these are more relevant to Islands and Rural Impact Assessments. The evidence base on rural closures is also mixed and context‑dependent, with some studies reporting wider knock‑on effects on local populations and communities over time (e.g. Denmark) (Sørensen et al., 2021), while other analysis notes the overall evidence base on socio‑economic/community impacts is limited and contested (Slee & Miller, 2015).
• For the CRWIA, the focus remains on upholding children’s rights, ensuring educational benefit, and supporting wellbeing during transitions.

Consultation/feedback from stakeholders:

Stakeholders highlighted the need for transparent decision making processes for temporary school and nursery closures, with mixed views on whether decisions on temporary closures should be by elected members and or delegated by relevant Council committees to senior Council officers.

There was strong support for early, meaningful engagement with those directly affected, including parents, carers, and the wider community, and for clear communication of reasons, timelines, and alternatives.

Concerns were raised about the setting of number or percentage-based thresholds for consideration or decision making in relation to temporary closures, the lack of robust consultation in some cases, and the risk that temporary closures could become permanent without due process.

Stakeholders recommended that temporary closures are reviewed regularly, publication of clear rationales and evidence for decisions, and greater visibility of temporarily closed schools in local authority processes.

The importance of ensuring that temporary closures are not used to bypass formal consultation duties was emphasised.

Consultation/feedback directly from children and young people:

Although this update to the guidance did not involve direct consultation with children and young people, their interests were considered through existing stakeholder engagement and correspondence from families. Education Scotland, through its ongoing engagement with children and young people, has also reflected their views. In addition, information provided by local authorities on previous closure proposals includes the perspectives of children and young people.

Further to the evidence described at ‘3’ have you identified any 'gaps' in evidence which may prevent determination of impact? If yes, please provide an explanation of how they will be addressed

Although this update did not involve bespoke, direct consultation with children and young people their views and interests were considered through a range of existing evidence sources. These included stakeholder engagement and correspondence from families. Education Scotland has also reflected views from its ongoing engagement with children and young people. In addition, local authorities routinely gather children’s perspectives through pupil focus groups and surveys as part of consultations under the 2010 Act, and insights from previous closure proposals have informed this update. While direct research on children’s views of temporary closure is limited, local authorities are encouraged to engage children in decision-making and monitor their wellbeing during transitions.

Mitigation: The updated guidance makes clear that, when considering a temporary closure of a school or ELC setting, local authorities should undertake early and meaningful engagement with children and young people as part of their local processes, and further consultation would be considered in future updates to the guidance.

Analysis of Evidence

Evidence from local authorities. What it told us:

This evidence demonstrated that clear, consistent guidance is needed to support decision making, ensure transparent communication and protect children from uncertainty. It highlighted that flexible approaches are necessary to uphold children’s best interests, particularly in small or rural schools.

Stakeholder engagement. What it told us:

Stakeholders reaffirmed the importance of early, meaningful engagement with children, young people and families. This evidence strengthened the need for guidance that protects participation rights (Articles 12 and 13) and ensures decisions do not undermine statutory consultation duties.

School estate statistics and Rural Schools list. What it told us:

The data indicated that temporary closures disproportionately affect rural and island communities. This suggests a potential differential impact on children in these areas, reinforcing the need for guidance that supports equity and continuity of education. In particular, the findings point to the importance of a flexible, case by case approach, rather than reliance on fixed numerical thresholds, and to allowing appropriate flexibility around the duration of temporary closures, while ensuring decisions are underpinned by clear rationale, and early engagement.

Existing temporary closure policies, correspondence and 2010 Act examples.

What it told us:

Existing practices varied across local authorities, signalling the need for clearer national expectations to safeguard children’s rights, maintain consistency and ensure temporary closures do not bypass statutory consultation. In particular, casework and correspondence highlighted the importance of consistent approaches to early engagement and transition planning, to ensure that individual circumstances including additional support needs are identified and considered.

Literature search. What it told us:

The literature confirmed the importance of respecting children’s views, supporting transitions and ensuring clear communication. It highlighted limited direct research in the specific context of small‑school viability closures, reinforcing the need for strengthened participation and engagement within the guidance.

Stakeholder feedback themes. What it told us:

Feedback evidenced strong support for transparency, robust decision‑making and regular review of temporary closures. It also identified risks (e.g., temporary closure becoming de facto permanent) that could negatively affect children’s sense of stability and rights to consultation.

Evidence from CYP via indirect channels. What it told us:

Although the update did not carry out direct consultation, indirect sources confirmed that children value being informed, listened to and supported during transitions. This emphasised the need for guidance requiring early engagement with children and young people at local level.

What changes (if any) have been made to the proposal as a result of this assessment?

The evidence gathered through this assessment reaffirmed the proposed approach. Stakeholder and local authority feedback supported stronger expectations around early engagement, transparent decision making and continuity of education. The assessment also identified that temporary closures could have a different and potentially greater impact in rural and island communities, where alternative provision may be more limited and travel distances longer.

Reflecting this, the updated guidance now states that “early engagement with parents/carers and children and young people likely to be affected” should begin when viability concerns arise, and that authorities should “produce a clear rationale and timelines for temporary closures” (paragraph 72). The guidance also sets out that, following a decision to temporarily close a school or nursery, authorities should “support children and their families with transition to alternative provision” (paragraph 75). The guidance also provides that fixed thresholds for temporary closures may not be appropriate, particularly in remote or rural areas, that there is no single minimum roll that determines viability, and that educational benefit and local context should be considered rather than number alone (paragraph 77).

No substantive changes to the proposal were required as a result of the CRWIA, but the assessment strengthened the emphasis placed on these engagement requirements within the guidance.